Missoula, MT. Twelve conservation groups are fighting for the survival of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. The groups today filed a federal court lawsuit challenging the federal government’s decision to remove the northern Rockies gray wolf population from the list of endangered species. Wolves should not

have been delisted, the groups argue, because they remain threatened by biased, inadequate state management plans, as well as by the lack of connections between largely isolated state wolf populations.

The Fish and Wildlife Services premature decision to strip the protections of the Endangered Species Act from the northern Rocky Mountains wolves promises to undo the hard-earned progress toward wolf recovery of recent years. State laws that guide wolf management in the wake of delisting betray the states continued hostility toward the presence of wolves in the region. While ensuring that wolves can and will be killed in defense of property or recreation, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana have refused to make enforceable commitments to maintaining viable wolf populations within their borders. The states have failed to keep track of recent wolf killings and also neglected to secure funding for essential monitoring and conservation efforts.

Actions by the states of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, and by individuals, since wolves were delisted demonstrate the need to resume federal safeguards for wolves until state plans are in place that ensure a sustainable wolf population in the region. For example, on the very day delisting took effect March 28, 2008 Idaho Governor Butch Otter signed into law a new Idaho law allowing Idaho citizens to kill wolves without a permit whenever wolves are annoying, disturbing, or worrying livestock or domestic animals. Since delisting, Wyoming has implemented its kill on sight predator law in nearly 90 percent of the state. Not surprisingly, these hostile state laws have resulted in a wave of new wolf killings.

At present, wolves in central Idaho, northwestern Montana, and the Greater Yellowstone area remain largely disconnected from each other and wolves in Canada. The wolves of the Greater Yellowstone area, in particular, have remained genetically isolated since 31 wolves were introduced into Yellowstone National Park more than a decade ago. Moreover, the region’s population of 1,500 wolves still falls short of the numbers that independent scientists have determined to be necessary to secure the health of the species in the northern Rockies.

With continued recovery efforts, real wolf recovery in the region is within reach. Delisting further endangers wolves because of increased wolf killing, reduced wolf numbers, and less genetic exchange between wolf populations.

The recent senseless and indiscriminate killings of wolves in Wyoming and Idaho clearly highlight the serious problems of the current state plans. Wolves need to be managed responsibly under plans that are based on current and reliable science. Running wolves down with snowmobiles and shooting the exhausted animals is not management its far too extreme and unsustainable. Suzanne Asha Stone, Defenders of Wildlife

There is nothing in the state management schemes or delisting rule itself to prevent the killing of up to 80 percent of wolves in the northern Rockies. Attempts by the Fish and Wildlife Service to assure the public otherwise have no factual basis. Louisa Willcox, Natural Resources Defense Council

Wolves in the northern Rockies are just now on the cusp of biological recovery, but arent ready for delisting. Current state management allows for wolf populations to be cut by up to 80 percent. Since delisting, our worst fears are coming true. In Wyoming, wolves are being killed at an alarming rate, with over a dozen wolves killed so far. Melanie Stein, Sierra Club

Just as disturbing as the state management plans that permit killing of hundreds of wolves is the expected increase in federal predator control, including ramped up aerial gunning, leghold traps and even poisoning of wolves. Federal predator control on behalf of the livestock industry is what exterminated wolves in the first place, and that was before the era of helicopter sharpshooters pursuing radio-collared wolves. We will bring this alarming prospect to a courts attention. Michael Robinson, Center for Biological Diversity

Idaho wins the prize for wanting to kill the most wolves. Wyoming wins for the most blatant hostility toward wolves enshrined in state law. And Montana wears the crown for killing the most wolves 8 of the last 10 years despite having the smallest wolf population of all three states. John Grandy, Ph.D., senior vice president of The Humane Society of the United States

We are concerned that Wyoming will strictly adhere to the language in the state legislation and aggressively eliminate wolves, some of which occupy Jackson Hole and parts of Grand Teton National Park. With Wyomings current plan, wolves two miles from Jacksons Town Square could be killed by anyone at any timethis is reprehensible. Franz Camenzind, Ph.D. Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance

As evidenced by the of State of Idaho’s proposals to aerial gun wolves in the Frank Church Wilderness and to kill up to 75% of the wolves on the Upper Lochsa while wolves remained protected, delisting at this time poses a great risk to the Northern Rockies wolf population, which is still recovering. Will Boyd, Education Director, Friends of the Clearwater

Legal action is necessary to prevent the states from implementing management schemes that have the primary purpose of eliminating, rather than conserving, wolves. Michael Garrity, Alliance for the Wild Rockies

“Oregon’s wolves are considered part of the Northern Rockies population, yet only five wolves that have returned to Oregon since 1999, and two were illegally shot. Whether people in Oregon ever get the opportunity to see and hear wolves someday, depends upon strong federal endangered species protection that prevents unnecessary killing of wolves throughout the Northern Rockies.” Steve Pedery, Conservation Director of Oregon Wild

The sudden and bloody increase in wolf killings since delisting confirms that wolves remain at risk in the west. To ensure the survival of wolves these magnificent animals need to expand their range throughout the western states. There are many public lands across the west with abundant elk and deer populations that can and should sustain wolves. Jon Marvel, Western Watersheds Project

For thousands of years, people lived alongside vibrant wolf populations in what is now the U.S. west. Misguided efforts to eradicate wolves over much of the last 150 years seriously damaged the land and ecosystems on which all life depends. Americans started the healing process by returning wolves to their natural place in the scheme of things, but that is now being threatened by a return to 19th century thinking and politics. David Johns, Wildlands Project

The spate of wolf killings since delistingincluding wolves chased down by snowmobiles and stalked at state-run feedgrounds in Wyomingmakes clear the need to reinstate protections for wolves under the Endangered Species Act. Jenny Harbine, Earthjustice

Western Watersheds Project Is A Regional Conservation Organization Working To Protect And Restore Western Watersheds And Wildlifehttp://www.westernwatersheds.org

Consider joining Western Watersheds Project yourself or enrolling a friend with a gift membership. Joining is easy at WWP’s secure online membership page at the following URL: https://www.westernwatersheds.org/members/joinwwp.html

To unsubscribe to this newslist, email a message to wwp@westernwatersheds.org with the word unsubscribe in the subject line. Be sure to visit the WWP web site at http://www.westernwatersheds.org. Western Watersheds Project, Box 1770 Hailey, Idaho 83333; 208-788-2290.

Share this:

Like this:

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University with specialties in natural resource politics, public opinion, interest groups, political parties, voting and elections. Aside from academic publications, he is author or co-author of three hiking/backpacking guides, and he is President of the Western Watersheds Project.

8 Responses to Delisting lawsuit is filed. Injunction asked

This is a quote from an update in the Idaho statesman. Does anyone no the specifics of the new 20 or so last kills?
“More wolves already have died under the relaxed state management plans. At least 37 were killed in the last month. As part of the lawsuit, the environmental groups said they will seek an immediate court order to restore federal control over the species until the case is resolved.”

I would like to ask Ralph, Bob Hoskins, Brian, and all of the other knowledgeable people on this blog if you think the lawsuit that was filed has enough “meat” in to to be successful? I have heard it said that it possibly doesn’t have the “teeth” to stop the de-listing. Thanks for any opinions you may have about this.

If the judge in the case is willing to follow the Ninth Circuit’s precedent then yes, I think the suit will succeed. Also, there are multiple reasons for challenging Interior’s decision (I say Interior because Department level politics are driving the delisting, not the biologists on the ground with FWS), it will depend on the strength of the case presented and the orientation of the judge. Yet, even if they lose in District court, the appeal will be filed in the Ninth Circuit, which has been extremely kind to conservation groups in the past regarding ESA issues.

The ESA defines a species as any species or subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plant or any distinct population segment of vertebrates.

The ESA defines an endangered species as a species in danger of extinction in (1) all or (2) a significant portion of its range.

The Ninth Circuit court of Appeals noted that a portion of a species range is significant if “major geographic areas” exist where the species was once viable, but is no longer.

By the Ninth Circuit’s standard, 88% of Wyoming = a major geographic area within the NRM DPS. Applying the ESA listing criteria to this area suggests that existing regulatory mechanisms (i.e. predator status) will not ensure the wolf’s survival in this area. The same argument could be made for all of Idaho after it passed its ludicrous you-can-shoot-wolves-if-they-look-at-you-funny law.

As long as the court follows precedent, I don’t see how they can lose.

Calendar

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."